Tuesday, February 26, 2013

I see his residency decision quite differently than they did. Whereas they see him as some sort of hero, I see him as a well-intentioned but ultimately bad parent. I love animals, but I love humans a lot more. To me, the real family – mother, son, and daughter – should take precedence over Slater.

Being an absentee father in order to cater to a dog isn’t touching. It’s touched. What sort of father would not want to spend his days with his 5-year old son and 3-year old daughter? Their youth is short-lived and precious. These are the days and years in which they are so cute (more so than any dog ever could be) and their brains and hearts soak up so much information and love. They need their dad to help provide that intellectual and emotional nourishment. Having him 800 miles away – in another country, no less – will do them no good. Sure, his ballplayer’s income will give them all the material goods that they’ll ever need or want, but, for 6 or 7 months out of the year they’ll be without the possession which they need the most – their father.

Suppose Buehrle plays out the rest of his career in Toronto. He’s only 33 and is still a darn good pitcher (he sports a 3.82 lifetime ERA), so it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to play another 7 years in the Bigs, especially for a rejuvenated Blue Jays organization (to which he’s obligated to at least three seasons). Will he continue to maintain the great divide between himself and his kin over that period? I hope not. By then, his kids will be 12 and 10. That’s a good portion of their childhood to throw away.

...He needs to love what matters most – his own flesh and blood, and not some dog. By doing so, he won’t end his solid MLB career with any regrets — he’ll feel like an accomplished father and not just an accomplished ballplayer.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Yes and yes. At the end of the day, I wonder how much Buehrle's circumstances will truly differ from your garden-variety major-league ballplayer, in terms of how much he sees his family during the season.

Are pit bulls dangerous because they're owned by macho ########## who don't train or socialize them adequately, or do macho ########## own pit bulls because they're dangerous dogs that enhance their owner's self-image of badassery? I lean towards the latter.

The larger, stronger, and naturally disposed to fighting, the more critical it is to adequately train, socialize, and monitor a dog. Some of the dogs with the worst dispositions are Chihuahuas, but they're so little that they don't pose the same sort of threat as a big animal.

In that sense, pit bulls, who are remarkably strong for their size with a history of breeding for the purpose of fighting and guarding, are particularly dangerous. People who want to own a dog that inspires fear in others will gravitate toward this sort of breed. So the answer is both: pit bulls are, by their nature, well-suited to aggression and dangerous behavior; and the wrong sort of people tend to desire them precisely for this reason.

A well-trained pit bull raised in a loving household by responsible owners is not a dangerous animal. A poorly-trained pit bull is a serious risk, but most dogs of reasonable size can be pretty dangerous if you don't train them properly. My mom's English Setter is perhaps the most docile dog I have ever seen, but she wasn't that way as a puppy. In fact, when we first got her, she was very food-aggressive, but we trained her and now she'll let a stranger touch her food while she eats without even reacting. My dog (a lab-shepherd mix) is around 65 pounds and she's similarly well-trained, but it doesn't happen by accident.